Tuesday, August 31, 2010

dinky bling.

i have an issue with women's watches. overall, to me, they just look dinky.

whether they are quality pieces of craftsmanship or basic wrist adornments, their minute size bothers me more than basic trinkets' because of the additional functionality. i know i follow a strange logic: little useless ornaments are ok as long as they're just trivial. add function and i think they're just annoying. boggles the mind.

the failure comes down to a lack of contrast, i have come to believe: they're too small for creating the delicate look that they are supposed to achieve. i am simple like that: big accentuates small, small brings out the large. i guess i haven't reached a more complex level of analysis, yet.

if it was about my wrists being thick i could understand the logic of feeling that dinky little things bring out something i wish to diminish. given i felt that thick wrists were something i would like to play down. not sure about that, though. but perhaps. nonetheless, mine are actually not, quite the opposite. therefore and nevertheless, you have seen me sporting a men's watch that accentuates my small wrist with its bulkiness. the watch is quite a few years old, from tag heuer and still one of my favorite accessories.

here, as with everything else in my style, the opposition of masculine and feminine is a precondition i treasure. i am quite sure many people find my bulky timepiece unnecessarily large and protruding – making the point slightly too obvious "see, i've got a small wrist, hello!"

but that's just me: underlining the obvious as always.

then, about two years ago i bought something very unlike myself.

first, it is golden.

second, it is small.

third, it is women's.



what made it mine was the sheer ugliness of the wrist adornment: old casio remake from the 80's was just enough of tacky to help me overcome the dinkiness of it.

i have worn it five times in total. not solely because it's small, but because it's golden. i do silver.

illogical.

the thing is, i love it. i do.

3 comments:

Lady Dada said...

Kultakello, ha-haaa!! Ei vaines, mulla on juttu noiden Casioiden kanssa, erityisesti sen, missä on se laskin.

Kellot on vaikeita. Ne on niin helposti hillittömiä huutomerkkejä. Ja nämä naisten korukellot on kamalia, mutta toisaalta; vasta löysin kuvan itsestäni jonkun kuuden vuoden takaa, missä mulla on kädessäni Rolex Daytona -replika. Mautonta. Ehkä se johtui liian löysästä rannekkeesta, ehkä siitä, että tiedän sen olevan Hong Kongin -tuliaisen tai ehkä vaan siitä, ettei se ylipäätään oo mitenkään puhutteleva koko kapistus.

Koskisen Vakiot on edelleenkin kivoja. Huolisin heti.

Anna said...

Mulla on kanssa aika lailla ennakkoluuloja naistenkelloja kohtaan. Naistenkellot on väärällä tavalla koristeellisia - ja sit juurikin liian pieniä. Mun kaikki rannekellot sitten lapsuuden on olleet miestenkelloja. Ja niin on nykyisetkin.

Rakastan yli kaiken digitaalikelloja (muistan nyt, etten oo tainnut esitelläkään omaa taannoista hankintaani....vai oonkohan?). Tuo sun on ihan ÄLYTTÖMÄN hieno. Mähän tykkään keltakullasta kyllä muutoinkin. Toi on täydellinen! Congratulations, woman!!

stellagee said...

lady dada, hahaa, munkin casio-harrastukseni on alkanut aiemmin, sellanen isonappulainen tarttui mukaan joskus 98 lontoosta... laskin tuntui liioittelulta, vaikka vetoaakin muhun.

haha, just tällä viikolla multa kysyttiin, että onko mun kello aito – en edes ole tullut ajatelleeksi, että tageja kopioitaisiin, rolexeissa epäilys on kylläkin aina feikkipuolella. ihme juttu. vakio kelpaisi mullekin...

anna, jeps, mulla samanlainen historia. tosin se taisi alkaa swatchin pop-kellosta, jonka jälkeen oli vaikeaa mennä pieneen päin...

digikelloissa on kyllä tunnelmaa, mutta mulle toi kulta on vaikea. tosi vaikea.